DOCSLIB.ORG

Canada Ignores Muskrat Falls at Its Own Peril

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Canada Ignores Muskrat Falls at Its Own Peril THETELEGRAM.COM MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2019 B1 business ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY Canada ignores Muskrat Falls at its own peril The Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. — FILE PHOTO Hydroelectric project poses risks for the country that are being ignored RYAN CALDER “International news coverage wetland capping to reduce Indigenous rights supposedly SALTWIRE NETWORK VIA methylmercury risks. The enshrined in both Canadian and THECONVERSATION.COM has portrayed Muskrat Falls Nunatsiavut Government, international law. Notably, in representing the Labrador Inuit, June, the United Nations Special September saw the scheduled as part of a broader trend, in urged the provincial govern- Rapporteur on human rights flooding at the Muskrat Falls ment to act on the recommen- and hazardous substances com- hydroelectric facility in Labra- which Canadian hydroelectric dations. mented publicly on the “absence dor, with the first power from development is almost always The province, however, of meaningful consultation” the facility set to start this fall. stalled for more than a year, of Indigenous communities by The $12.7 billion provincial pursued at the expense of until declaring in 2019 that the Canadian governments regard- investment in green energy Indigenous populations. deadline had been “unintention- ing methylmercury impacts. has driven Newfoundland ally missed.” (The Innu Nation, and Labrador to the verge of This threatens the viability who were able to negotiate a LOOK TO QUÉBEC bankruptcy and made a global benefits sharing agreement in In Canada, the provinces are exhibition of Canada’s natural of Canadian hydropower, 2012, had opposed this advice, primarily responsible for ques- resource development. Too which depends on access describing it as “risky” and call- tions of environmental and often the impacts on Indigen- ing into question its cost-effect- human health. So, they need to ous Peoples are treated as after- to the U.S. export market.” iveness.) invest in developing a culture thoughts. What was the province’s of transparent, inclusive and The province has spent the decomposition of soil organic driven by the legacy of Churchill actual commitment to consul- scientifically substantiated en- past 10 years refusing to engage matter and production of Falls, a previous hydroelectric tation or indemnification? Was vironmental impact analysis. the Labrador Inuit over their methylmercury. Methylmercury project upstream of Muskrat it surprised by the advice of Québec is by far the leading credible concerns of health is a potent neurotoxin that that Falls. After the Churchill Falls the independent committee to producer of hydroelectricity in impacts from the hydroelectric can accumulate in local fish and project, fish methylmercury which it had appointed numer- Canada and has the most to lose project. It has ignored both the other aquatic species such as levels increased more than 10 ous Nalcor consultants? from reduced market access. available scientific evidence seals and birds. times above baseline levels at Historic confrontations with and the recommendations of an Prenatal exposure to methyl- their peak. These impacts were INTERNATIONAL Indigenous communities over independent committee it itself mercury is associated with a host observed more than 300 kilo- STANDING IN JEOPARDY hydroelectric development in created. of neurodevelopmental impacts, metres downstream and per- Roughly 10 per cent of the the 1970s led the province to Accusations that the province including ADHD and reduced sisted for more than 30 years. electricity generated by Canada overhaul its approach to en- of Newfoundland and Labrador IQ. Any increase in exposures, Nalcor, the provincial Crown is exported to the United States, vironmental assessment and misled the Labrador Inuit over even at low levels, increases corporation responsible for the driving a hydropower boom public engagement. its plans to mitigate the risk as- these risks. project, concedes that flooding north of the border. North- Today, decision-making at sociated with the hydroelectric All seafood consumers are is likely to increase methylmer- ern states have been counting Hydro-Québec, the crown cor- project have led to a wave of exposed to methylmercury. But cury levels in the reservoir and on Canadian hydropower to poration responsible for elec- protests. for most people, the benefits of river environment. However, it achieve their renewable energy trical generation and delivery, is Although there has been eating seafood exceed the risks. has maintained since 2009 that targets. However, the U.S. heavily influenced by independ- some Canadian media interest Indigenous communities face “there is no reasonable possibil- environmental lobby is increas- ent, project-specific committees in Muskrat Falls, the coverage high rates of food insecurity ity” of impact on Labrador Inuit, ingly hostile to importation that include scientists and In- has generally failed to address driven by high food prices and a position reaffirmed in 2016 of Canadian hydropower, fa- digenous representatives. More the systemic factors that enabled low opportunities for wage and again by the provincial gov- vouring stateside development broadly, institutions such as the the province to disregard the labour. They are often depend- ernment in 2019. of renewables such as wind. Bureau d’audiences publiques constitutional rights of Indigen- ent on access to (and trust in) For example, the North sur l’environnement seek to ous Peoples to consultation and traditional food sources for nu- RISKS TO INUIT American Megadams Resist- reconcile public opinion with consent. tritional sufficiency. Since 2012, I have been part ance, a New York-based advo- the scope of environmental International news coverage Hydroelectric development of an interdisciplinary team of cacy group, has drawn on the assessments and mitigation has portrayed Muskrat Falls as therefore forces affected com- researchers working to char- experience of Marjorie Flowers, measures. part of a broader trend, in which munities to choose between two acterize the risks of Muskrat an Inuk activist imprisoned for Conversely, Newfoundland Canadian hydroelectric develop- evils — higher methylmercury Falls to the Labrador Inuit. We her protest against Muskrat and Labrador has spent years ment is almost always pursued exposures or changes to the have described how northern Falls, to argue against hydro- hollowing out its civil service. It at the expense of Indigenous most nutritious part of their estuaries like Lake Melville are power imports from Québec. is now reliant on the advice of populations. This threatens the diets. vulnerable to changes in river Meanwhile, the Conservation consultants retained via short- viability of Canadian hydro- Renewable energy plan methylmercury inputs, how Law Foundation is setting the term contract to understand power, which depends on access The Muskrat Falls hydroelec- highly varied diets leave some stage for a legal challenge to the the likely impacts of its natural to the U.S. export market. tric facility was sanctioned in individuals likely to face ele- U.S. Department of Energy’s resource endeavours. Muskrat Falls seems to be 2012 as the cornerstone of the vated methylmercury exposures deference to Canadian environ- Québec has invested heavily changing American percep- Lower Churchill Project, an am- and how food consumption mental assessments in author- in creating and maintaining tions of the sustainability and bitious plan to provide renew- advisories are likely to deprive izing cross-border electrical scientific capacity and politically democratic legitimacy of Can- able energy to Atlantic Canada a food-insecure population of connections. Currently, the independent public institutions. adian hydropower imports and New England. access to nutritious, traditional DOE defers to Canada to evalu- This has had the net result of compared to other renewables. Throughout the design and food. ate impacts within its borders increasing the democratic legit- Muskrat Falls therefore jeopard- permitting process, the Lab- Sustained pressure in the on the premise that impacts are imacy of its economic projects. izes Canada’s economic welfare, rador Inuit raised concerns wake of these scientific findings assessed and reconciled within a Canada’s moral standing and in addition to its moral cred- over potential methylmercury led Newfoundland and Labrador democratic framework. economic survival may depend ibility. impacts: their land claim area to create in 2017 an independent There is however a real and on other provinces catching up. extends into Lake Melville, an committee to evaluate the evi- growing perception among MUSKRAT FALLS AND estuary about 50 kilometres dence on health risks of Muskrat international policy makers Ryan Calder is a postdoctoral METHYLMERCURY downstream from Muskrat Falls. that Canadian natural resources associate at Duke University. Flooding hydroelectric reser- Falls. In 2018, the committee voted are tainted by undemocratic This article first appeared voirs accelerates the microbial In part, these fears were in favour of soil removal and processes and disrespect of on theconversation.com..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects Below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT
    IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT Requesting Organization – Joint Review Panel Information Request No.: JRP.166 Subject – Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls References: EIS Guidelines, Section 4.5.1 (Environmental Effects General) Related Comments / Information Requests: IR # JRP.43, IR # JRP.149, IR # JRP.153 Information Requested: a. Nalcor hydrology studies indicate the Churchill River exerts a strong influence on the estuarine regime in Goose Bay and concerns have been expressed by a number of participants regarding the downstream effects of the Project. Explain the specific criteria used in Nalcor's response to Information Request (IR) JRP.43 to predict no measurable effect on downstream total phosphorus and total suspended solids, transport distances, fish productivity, salinity, velocity and thermal profiles from Goose Bay to Lake Melville, ice dynamics, ringed and harbour seal use of Lake Melville, bank stability, fish habitat utilization and fish migration. Identify whether and how these predictions apply to the period of reservoir impoundment, and the post‐impoundment transitional period before water quality stabilizes. Response: The influence of the lower Churchill River freshwater hydrology on Goose Bay and Lake Melville is recognized by Nalcor Energy (Nalcor) and has been central to limiting downstream effects to the extent possible. The minimal change in flow regime below Muskrat Falls as a result of the Project as described in IR# JRP.43, IR# JRP.149 and IR# JRP.153 mitigates most potential effects in terms of changes in salinity, circulation/current influenced by freshwater flows of the Churchill River, shoreline erosion (due to changes in water levels), tributary access, fish movements, habitat utilization and transportation distances.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generating Project Develop an Integrated Approach to Assess Sustainability
    Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generating Project Develop an Integrated Approach to Assess Sustainability by F. I. M. Muktadir Boksh A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Policy at Memorial University of Newfoundland Grenfell Campus Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador August 2015 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Measurement Units ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... v Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background Information ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North
    Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Calder, Ryan Spencer Dyas. 2017. Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42066834 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Dissertation advisor: Dr. Elsie Sunderland Ryan S.D. Calder Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North Abstract Hydroelectric reservoir creation accelerates microbial conversion of inorganic mercury (Hg) to bioaccumulative, neurotoxic methylmercury (MeHg). This thesis forecasts MeHg production in flooded reservoirs based on soil organic carbon content and probabilistically models the exposure impacts on local human populations by considering as a case study the Inuit settled downstream from hydroelectric development on the Churchill River, Labrador, Canada. Expected riverine MeHg levels there are approximately ten times present-day average values. Mean MeHg exposures are forecasted to double following flooding and over half of the women of childbearing age and young children in the most northern community are projected to exceed the U.S. EPA’s reference dose. Equal or greater impacts on aqueous MeHg are expected at 11 sites across Canada, suggesting the need for remediation measures prior to flooding or screening of potential sites for human health impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project LCP Aquatic Environmental
    Aquatic Protection and Doc. #: LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan Rev A1 Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project LCP Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 Comments: Total # of Pages This document supersedes document MFA-AM-CD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 (Including Cover): 82 B3 Issued for Use P. Madden M. Organ R. Power Status/ Date Reason For Issue Prepared By Functional Manager Approval General Project Manager Revision This document contains intellectual property of the Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project and shall not be copied, used or CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: distributed in whole or in part without the prior written consent from the Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project. LCP AQUATIC PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN Nalcor Doc. No. Revision Page LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 B3 ii Inter-Departmental / Discipline Approval (where required) Department Manager Department Date Approval LCP-PT-MD-0000-QM-FR-0001-01, REV B2 LCP AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN Nalcor Doc. No. Revision Page LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 B3 i CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 4 2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 5 4 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
    [Show full text]
  • Governance in Times of Crisis: the Muskrat Falls Case
    Governance in Times of Crisis: the Muskrat Falls Case Cole Atlin and Mark C.J. Stoddart April 2021 Project Report Governance in Times of Crisis: the Muskrat Falls Case Report prepared for the Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador April 2021 Cole Atlin, PhD and Mark C.J. Stoddart, PhD Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 6 THE CONTEXT 7 The Fiscal Deterioration of NL 8 Failure of Churchill Falls for Newfoundland & Labrador 9 MUSKRAT FALLS PROJECT MANAGEMENT & NALCOR 14 THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR 17 The Premier and NL Government 17 ARM’S LENGTH PUBLIC SECTOR INSTITUTIONS 20 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 22 Federal Oversight of Guaranteed Loan 24 Public Opinion & Limited Public Intervention 25 INDIGENOUS CONCERNS & FREE PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT 28 Methylmercury and Clearing 32 North Spur Destabilization 33 Hunger Strikes & Demonstrations 34 Lack of Clearing 35 SUSTAINABLE FUTURES ANALYSIS 36 Ecological Sustainability 36 Climate Change 36 Methylmercury 38 Socio-Cultural Sustainability 39 Indigenous Communities 39 2 Criminal Charges and Social Consequences 39 Economic Sustainability 40 Federal Government 41 Viability of Export Market 41 LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE POLICY 42 Avoiding Provincial Insolvency 42 Accepting Provincial Economic Limitations 43 Adaptive Design and Management 44 Alternatives Analysis 44 UNDRIP/ FPIC & Self-Determination 46 Future Development Opportunities involving NL and Indigenous Communities 47 Independent Oversight required for Crown Corporations- PUB 47 Risks of speaking out against project 48 CONCLUSION 49 METHODS 50 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 50 REFERENCES 51 3 Executive Summary This report examines the implications of the Muskrat Falls hydro-electric project on Newfoundland and Labrador’s overall sustainability and recommends potential policy and governance directions to improve the province’s long-term wellbeing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Misguided Project Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project
    Muskrat Falls: Commission of Inquiry A Misguided Project Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project Volume 1: Executive Summary, Key Findings and Recommendations Volume 2: Pre-Sanction Events Volume 3: Post-Sanction Events The Honourable Richard D. LeBlanc Commissioner Volume 4: Looking Forward March 5, 2020 Volume 5: Appendices Volume 6: Exhibit Listing COMMISSION OF INQUIRY RESPECTING THE MUSKRAT FALLS PROJECT MUSKRAT FALLS: A MISGUIDED PROJECT VOLUME 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Honourable Richard D. LeBlanc, Commissioner Submitted to: The Honourable Siobhan Coady Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador March 5, 2020 www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca About This Report This Report quotes heavily from testimony and exhibits presented at or to the Commission during the activities of its inquiry. Documentary evidence was catalogued and made available to the public on the Commission’s website. When cited in this Report, these public exhibits are referred to by their individual number (for example, P-00001). Similarly, testimony given by witnesses during the public hearings was transcribed and made publicly available at muskratfallsinquiry.ca. Quotes from testimony are cited with a date and transcript page number. Because both types of citations are so numerous in this Report, smaller type was used to reduce their intrusion in the text. No changes to spelling or punctuation were made in any quoted material. The minimal additions to quotes that were made (for clarity) were inserted [like this]. It should also be noted that, unless otherwise indicated, all monetary figures are in Canadian dollars. As will be explained in more detail in the text, the “Muskrat Falls Project” and “the Project” both refer to the tri-part development that includes the infrastructure and generating station at Muskrat Falls, the Labrador-Island Link and the Labrador Transmission Assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Evaluation of the Environmental Impact
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Newfoundland and Labrador Region Science Advisory Report 2009/024 SCIENCE EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT TO IDENTIFY DEFICIENCIES WITH RESPECT TO FISH AND FISH HABITAT Figure 1: The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project (Source: Nalcor Energy 2009, Lower Churchill Project EIS). Context : Nalcor Energy has proposed to develop the remaining hydroelectric potential on the Churchill River, Labrador. The proposed project will include the construction of two dams and associated generating stations; one at Gull Island and the second at Muskrat Falls. The construction of these facilities will alter the aquatic environment of the river, below Churchill Falls, as well as the receiving environment (i.e., Lake Melville). This alteration will impact on fish and fish habitat thus making the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) a responsible authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Branch (DFO) have requested that Science Branch (DFO) provide a review of the information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided by Nalcor Energy on the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project. This information will be provided to June 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador Region Science Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Statement for Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Branch to help form part of the Department’s response to overall adequacy of the EIS as assessed against the guidelines which have been agreed upon by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This review evaluated: 1. The methods used within the descriptions and/or predictions of the aquatic environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Churchill River Sedimentation and Morphodynamics Study I FINAL Nhc
    Component Studies Aquatic Environment (2) Water Quality and Quantity Report 3 of 5 Sedimentation and Morphodynamics Study January 2009 Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT SEDIMENTATION AND MORPHODYNAMICS STUDY FINAL REPORT 3-4757 Prepared for: AMEC Earth & Environmental 5681 - 70 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6B 3P6 Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants 30 Gostick Place North Vancouver, BC V7M 3G3 July 2008 FINAL nhc DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by northwest hydraulic consultants in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geoscience practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of the client for whom it was prepared and for the particular purpose for which it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. northwest hydraulic consultants and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any party other than the client for whom the document was prepared. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from northwest hydraulic consultants. Lower Churchill River Sedimentation and Morphodynamics Study i FINAL nhc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) is proposing to develop the hydroelectric potential of the lower Churchill River downstream of the existing Churchill Falls Hydroelectric Station. The proposed development, known as the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, will consist primarily of two new hydroelectric generating facilities: one at Gull Island located approximately 100 km above the mouth of the Churchill River, and one at Muskrat Falls located 46 km above the mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Safety That Was, Is Gone”: Muskrat Falls and Labrador Land Protectors’ Changing Health and Wellbeing
    “The safety that was, is gone”: Muskrat Falls and Labrador Land Protectors’ Changing Health and Wellbeing Report for Labrador Land Protectors February 2019 This report was prepared by Jessica Penney for the Labrador Land Protectors and the general public. It consists of key findings from a Master’s dissertation completed in Summer 2018. Jessica Penney is a Nunatsiavut Inuk with family from Rigolet and Happy Valley-Goose Bay who was raised in Iqaluit, Nunavut. This project was part of her MSc in Global Health and was supervised by Dr. Christopher Bunn. Jessica is now a PhD student at the University of Glasgow, and hopes to expand on the work presented within this report. This work was supported by a MAXQDA Research for Change Grant, and Jessica gratefully acknowledges the support of the Labrador Institute for providing office space during her time in Labrador. Jessica can be contacted by email at [email protected] with any questions or comments. The Labrador Land Protectors can be contacted at their Facebook page: ‘Labrador Land Protectors’ or on Twitter at: @protectlabrador. 2 Table of Contents Section Page Summary 4 Background 5 Findings 8 1. Health and Wellbeing Concerns 8 2. Environmental Change and Health and Wellbeing 9 3. Structural Issues 11 Conclusion 13 References 14 Acronym List HVGB Happy Valley-Goose Bay NL Newfoundland and Labrador LLPs Labrador Land Protectors MF Muskrat Falls NG Nunatsiavut Government 3 Summary This report summarizes health concerns in relation to the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project expressed by a group of Labrador Land Protectors in Summer 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Ÿþm I C R O S O F T W O R
    REPORT OF THE JOINT REVIEW PANEL LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT NALCOR ENERGY NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS August 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Nalcor Energy is proposing to develop two hydroelectric generation facilities on the lower Churchill River in central Labrador with a combined capacity of 3,074 megawatts (MW) and at a cost of approximately $6.4 billion. The Project would consist of two dams located at Muskrat Falls (824 MW) and Gull Island (2,250 MW), two reservoirs, and transmission lines connecting Muskrat Falls, Gull Island and the existing Churchill Falls hydroelectric facility. Additional facilities would include access roads, temporary bridges, construction camps, borrow pits and quarry sites, diversion facilities and spoil areas. For the purposes of this assessment, transmission lines to carry the power to markets were not included in the Project. The provincial and federal governments agreed to a joint review panel to ensure that the environmental assessment satisfied their respective legislative requirements – the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – in an effective and efficient manner. The provincial and federal governments will make the final decisions regarding Project approval. The joint review panel is providing advice to the governments by means of this report. The joint review panel (“the Panel”) was appointed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Environment and Conservation and
    [Show full text]
  • Muskrat Falls: a Misguided Project Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project
    Muskrat Falls: A Misguided Project Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project Volume 1: Executive Summary, Key Findings and Recommendations Volume 2: Pre-Sanction Events Volume 3: Post-Sanction Events The Honourable Richard D. LeBlanc Volume 4: Looking Forward Commissioner Volume 5: Appendices March 5, 2020 Volume 6: Exhibit Listing COMMISSION OF INQUIRY RESPECTING THE MUSKRAT FALLS PROJECT MUSKRAT FALLS: A MISGUIDED PROJECT VOLUME 3: POST-SANCTION EVENTS The Honourable Richard D. LeBlanc, Commissioner Submitted to: The Honourable Siobhan Coady Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador March 5, 2020 www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca About This Report This Report quotes heavily from testimony and exhibits presented at or to the Commission during the activities of its inquiry. Documentary evidence was catalogued and made available to the public on the Commission’s website. When cited in this Report, these public exhibits are referred to by their individual number (for example, P-00001). Similarly, testimony given by witnesses during the public hearings was transcribed and made publicly available at muskratfallsinquiry.ca. Quotes from testimony are cited with a date and transcript page number. Because both types of citations are so numerous in this Report, smaller type was used to reduce their intrusion in the text. No changes to spelling or punctuation were made in any quoted material. The minimal additions to quotes that were made (for clarity) were inserted [like this]. It should also be noted that, unless otherwise indicated, all monetary figures are in Canadian dollars. As will be explained in more detail in the text, the “Muskrat Falls Project” and “the Project” both refer to the tri-part development that includes the infrastructure and generating station at Muskrat Falls, the Labrador-Island Link and the Labrador Transmission Assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Stabilization of the North Spur at Muskrat Falls: an Overview
    CDA 2015 Annual Conference Congrès annuel 2015 de l’ACB CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION Mississauga, ON, Canada ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DE BARRAGES 2015 Oct 5-8 Stabilization of the North Spur at Muskrat Falls: An Overview Alvaro Ceballos, P.Eng, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Muskrat Falls Project, SNC-Lavalin Inc, St. John’s, NL Greg Snyder, FEC, P.Eng, Engineering Manager, Muskrat Falls Project, SNC-Lavalin Inc, St. John’s, NL Regis Bouchard, FCGS, P.Eng, Lead Geotechnical Engineer, Muskrat Falls Project, SNC-Lavalin Inc, St. John’s, NL ABSTRACT: Nalcor Energy’s Lower Churchill Project is located on the Churchill River in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. It consists of two potential hydroelectric sites and associated transmission systems: Gull Island hydroelectric development, located 225 km downstream of the existing Churchill Falls Generating Station; and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric development, located 60 km further downstream. The present generating site now being developed by Nalcor Energy is the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric facility located on the lower reaches of the Churchill River, approximately 35 km west of the town of Happy Valley – Goose Bay, Labrador. A critical feature of the development is the North Spur, a natural earth embankment that constricts the river at the project location. The North Spur is 1,000 m long, 500 m wide and 45 m to 60 m high and consists of unconsolidated mixed sand and marine silt and clay. Stabilization of this land mass is a key part of construction of Muskrat Falls. The North Spur is a unique case involving stabilization of a natural dam, and therefore it has come under considerable scrutiny and review.
    [Show full text]